The Right Way to Combat Stupid Abortion Questions

As I look back on the election and how the Senate turned out, the Republicans lost 2 super easy pickups because the candidates had a bad case of foot in mouth disease. Surely, they did answer on the side of life, but it came out so stupidly, that they were never able to recover. Sadly, their ineptitude to articulate a solid pro-life stance was overshadowed by their words. The establishment, of course, ran from them as though they had just killed somebody on national television, and we are now sitting with a bigger deficit in the senate, and no chance of repealing Obamacare.

There's a great article on the 10 questions that would never be asked of a pro-choice candidate, and it is a great way to turn the argument on it's head. However, even these don't go far enough. The republicans need to go totally pro-choice with their answers. In my opinion, the pro-life candidate should answer totally of the deep end of ending human life. It is time to quit being serious and heartfelt when answering the gotcha questions from a media and establishment that just excoriates any candidate with any position toward protecting human life.

So, from here forward, we as pro-life people should extend viability to the age of 26. This would show the democrats, who believe that it is imperative that "children" stay on the parents insurance until the age of 26 is a ludicrous stance. When asked if there should be any exceptions to a candidates anti-abortion stance, he/she should state the following:

 "Thank you so much for the question. I do feel that in the case of viability of life, that we could exempt our pro-life stance. The democrats feel that a human life is a burden through the age of 26, and unable to care for itself until that point. Therefore, I do feel that we should classify any death of a child up until age 26 by the hands of their parents as an abortion. There are many individuals clogging up our prison system who have, what I will call for the duration of this debate, had an abortion outside of the womb. My opponent has stated on numerous occasions that a woman's right to choose is so important, I feel that we should extend that right until the child is totally independent." 

Can you imagine the headlines? Can you imagine the shock? Can you imagine what the candidate's rebuttal would be? This would definitely start a conversation, and it would allow us, for once, to go on offense and show just how stupid the war on women, the war on vaginas, and the war on <insert fake crap here> really is. Another way we could combat the media's narrative is to state that we now agree with abortion. Take a ludicrous stance and remind those who get in our face that their parents made a bad choice. Let them know that they were a dumb ass decision away from not being able to yell at us and tell us how wrong we are. It's time to take the argument to them. It's time to make them defend their positions. It's time to make  them explain why they feel so strongly about protecting smelt that they would allow 50% unemployment in an agriculture rich area, yet stand just as staunchly for killing the unborn, at any time. It's time people. Stand up! We're right. They're wrong. Period.